The social and polical importance of tropical weather

There are two points about the above which should be of relevant concern. The first is that they do suggest that the current period of excessive storms will likely last another 20 years so this is a real question. And second, that even when that ebbs the current situation is more the norm than the relative quieter storms we had before this period began.In other words it may be getting worse before it gets better, and when it gets better it may not be anywhere as nice as it has been when we were all rapidly developing into those areas. I just don't think this is true. If we do not adjust how people live (physical structures and locations) in these areas, then it will be costly, but I don't think anything will actually break our bank (at least not anymore than the wars we are fighting). Natural disasters strike every nation, and some more strongly and more repeatedly than others.The fact that mankind and nations have moved on thrived, means mankind is likely to continue to move on and thrive. The nature of our "lifestyle" will be dictated by those who move on. A storm can't threaten how we choose to live socially in between storms, unless we are locked in a very small geographical location.Once again, I am in a nation where 1/3 is underwater technically, and even more during storm surges. Technology kept this nation alive and well... until rightists entered power and drastically changed the course of this nation reversing decades to centuries of its "culture".

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I understood you meant the US, but was bringing in the fact that if it can't destroy smaller nations it likely won't destroy the US. I see no difference between "wrecking" and "destroying" the economy.This... and this... ...are the real problems. They are manmade.You are right that natural disasters will compound these issues to make them worse. But I'm of the opinion that that fact doesn't make the natural disasters the cause of our worries, nor should they be the focus of our (economic) concerns.This message has been edited by holmes, 10-17-2005 11:31 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hurricane age? Again we are simply shifting back toward norms. We were in a passive age which deluded a lot of people.I do not feel confident to predict whether another few years will or will not knock us into a recession for a time, but if we cannot recover to a point where we can weather future years of storms with minimal impact on the economy as a whole then that would be a manmade one. Well that is true but tied back again to wholly manmade issues. If we were not in the situation we are with oil, then storms hitting regional oil supplies would not be a major factor. It is humbling to see that nature will always be a player in human life, but I just can't agree with "threat to our way of life". Regionally perhaps, especially if the way people live physically does not adjust (that is people do not adapt), but not wholesale.Maybe I am just not understanding what way of life means to you. In fact now that I think of it recessions and depressions do not really change our way of life as they are a part of life. Way of life to me means a change in social order, such that we lose freedoms we once had, or are incapable of living together as we once had.The last great depression caused suffering, but life includes periods of suffering and our "way of life" handles it or it cannot and ends. In this case our way of life most certainly did handle the depression, and we came out with some extra securities.It was actually during the periods of good economy and weather that our greatest changes away from our "way of life" have generally occured.Maybe it just seems that way to me though, since natural disasters force everyone to be practical with solutions, while manmade disasters means that any and all solutions can be invoked, usually the most drastic to how we live.AbE: It just occured to me that perhaps our disconnect is that when you say "way of life" you are actually meaning "standard of living". To me those are very different things, recessions and depressions marking reduced standards of living even if they do not change our way of life. I would agree that multiple and continuous natural disasters could very well effect the standard of living. Though I still believe that should eventually work itself out over time.This message has been edited by holmes, 10-18-2005 05:59 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is not a right or wrong thing, but a matter of opinion. Thus I am not going to argue that you are wrong in considering things in this way. What I will do is explain why I see it differently. We can use your example... I'm glad you brought this up as an example as I wanted to earlier. I agree with your assessment that things could certainly get as bad as that, only now from mounting storms. Although you state here that a victims of the dust bowl had their "way if life" effected, that is significantly different than OUR way of life.As I said, suffering is a part of life. A person having suffered a couple heart attacks will have their way of life effected, as they must now live much differently in order to try and preserve their standard of living. Yet even if their is a significant rise in the number of heart attacks across the nation, the nation's way of life will not change, even if standards of living are generally effected with the cost of healthcare going up.The same goes with the dust bowl victims. They were caught in a regional suffering and had both their standard of living and way of life effected. But the nation as a whole maintained its way of life, even if the standard of living dropped.If it hadn't kept its way of life then when the depression went into recovery we'd have been looking at a vastly different nation. But it wasn't, except for a few more protection to guard against future occurences. Those that had had their standard of living reduced, may have seen good times again and lived the same way they had before.A counter point would be Nazi germany. Although they did not face a true natural crisis, they suffered a similar manmade crisis (economic collapse). Unlike the US, the Germans were willing to sacrifice their way of life to try and regain their standard of living. Once recovery happened, german citizens were faced with a much much different nation and way of doing things.That's why I do not conflate standard of living with way of life. In doing that it is easier to see solutions to standards problems by changing the way we live.Hope that was interesting, but like I said if you want to keep your way of looking at things I certainly won't call you wrong.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)